[scap_interest] Operational Aspects

Adam Montville <amontville@tripwire.com> Tue, 14 February 2012 21:13 UTC

Return-Path: <amontville@tripwire.com>
X-Original-To: scap_interest@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: scap_interest@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9200E21E801D for <scap_interest@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 13:13:01 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.382
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.382 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.783, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id IwQoxmjF5YCR for <scap_interest@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 13:13:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from AM1EHSOBE001.bigfish.com (am1ehsobe001.messaging.microsoft.com []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A30D21F85E7 for <scap_interest@ietf.org>; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 13:12:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail58-am1-R.bigfish.com ( by AM1EHSOBE001.bigfish.com ( with Microsoft SMTP Server id; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 21:12:52 +0000
Received: from mail58-am1 (localhost []) by mail58-am1-R.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A384A4803E5 for <scap_interest@ietf.org>; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 21:12:55 +0000 (UTC)
X-SpamScore: -10
X-BigFish: VPS-10(zz9f17Rzz1202hzz8275bhz2dh2a8h668h839h944h)
X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:; KIP:(null); UIP:(null); IPV:NLI; H:PDXHB01.tripwire.com; RD:174-47-84-216.static.twtelecom.net; EFVD:NLI
Received: from mail58-am1 (localhost.localdomain []) by mail58-am1 (MessageSwitch) id 1329253974850045_31580; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 21:12:54 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from AM1EHSMHS014.bigfish.com (unknown []) by mail58-am1.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA64B4020B for <scap_interest@ietf.org>; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 21:12:54 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from PDXHB01.tripwire.com ( by AM1EHSMHS014.bigfish.com ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 21:12:52 +0000
Received: from PDXHB01.tripwire.com ( by PDXED01.tripwire.com ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.355.2; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 13:21:39 -0800
Received: from PDXMB02.tripwire.com ([fe80::f997:7b65:8e64:438e]) by PDXHB01.tripwire.com ([fe80::d495:98d2:7df4:2154%11]) with mapi id 14.01.0355.002; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 13:12:52 -0800
From: Adam Montville <amontville@tripwire.com>
To: "scap_interest@ietf.org" <scap_interest@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Operational Aspects
Thread-Index: AQHM611pUdMxDo8SrEm/UADfFmLhZw==
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 21:12:51 +0000
Message-ID: <CB600E53.9221%amontville@tripwire.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/
x-originating-ip: []
x-exclaimer-md-config: 79afcaa7-fdf4-4fa6-abe0-afeaa4640a4f
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <38B6AE7A2531C745B1CFA2ECC42345EE@tripwire.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: tripwire.com
Subject: [scap_interest] Operational Aspects
X-BeenThere: scap_interest@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussion List for IETFers interested in the Security Content Automation Protocol \(SCAP\)." <scap_interest.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/scap_interest>, <mailto:scap_interest-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/scap_interest>
List-Post: <mailto:scap_interest@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:scap_interest-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/scap_interest>, <mailto:scap_interest-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 21:13:01 -0000

While we're all bantering about on security automation, there's another side to the story.  Are there any operational concerns we might address within a WG should one be formed?  For example, we have, in the United States, NVD hosting a repository of information.  CCE identifiers are moderated and assigned by an operational process.  As new enumerations are published and new types of content are conceived, it's easy to imagine the need for some operational standardization.

Should we consider standardizing some of these processes, and if so would the WG we seek to establish be the appropriate place for that work?


Adam W. Montville | Security and Compliance Architect

Direct: 503 276-7661
Mobile: 360 471-7815